United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Oh My: Palin to Endorse Trump in Iowa Today?
Source:
Townhall
URL Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben ... bout-to-endorse-trump-n2106499
Published: Jan 19, 2016
Author: Guy Benson
Post Date: 2016-01-19 10:55:40 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 11952
Comments: 70
I'll admit it -- when this speculation began mounting yesterday, I wasn't remotely sold on the idea that Palin was poised jump aboard the Trump Train when so many influential figures within the conservative talk radio constellation are at long last blasting The Donald and rallying to Cruz. The Palin speculation seemed even less plausible when this rumor leaked: Multiple little birdies tell me Jerry Falwell, Jr. is going to endorse Trump for president and come to Iowa with him tomorrow.— Steve Deace (@SteveDeaceShow) January 18, 2016 Wow. Palin's jet following Trump campaign; endorsement imminent. Broken via flight records: https://t.co/BALN6KGFSE https://t.co/Z4rFX0mirY— Matt Popovich (@mpopv) January 19, 2016 @LPDonovan did you see it went to Tulsa next https://t.co/s6q4PMgPSG— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) January 19, 2016 Gonna watch the Trump/Palin rally with the largest bottle of bourbon I can find.— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) January 19, 2016
Falwell bestowed a fulsome introduction upon Donald "Two Corinthians" Trump just yesterday -- much to the dismay of many in the evangelical community -- so Deace's report made sense. Surely that's the big announcement and "special guest" Trump's been pumping on social media, right? Not so fast, my friends:
Interesting. But so what if there's a private jet bound from Anchorage to Iowa? That could be a coincidence. Or...uh, maybe not:
Oh my. The jet is headed to Ames, then hopping over to Tulsa? Exactly mirroring Trump's campaign itinerary? Dude. This might actually be happening. And what a splash it would make less than two weeks before Iowa. Should Palin's endorsement both come to fruition (there have been clues along the way), and push Trump over the top, emotionalist nationalistic populism will have officially supplanted principled, policy-driven, limited-government conservatism as the currently dominant strain within the American right-wing. I'll leave you with this, because why not at this point?
Buckle up, amigos. If you need me, I'll be passed out under my desk:
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-25) not displayed.
.
.
.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#17)
It was the Reagan administration that launched the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1986 that lowered global tariffs and created the World Trade Organization. It was his administration that won approval of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988. That agreement soon expanded to include Mexico in what became the North American Free Trade Agreement, realizing a vision that Reagan first articulated in the 1980 campaign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcTPwHY-LpY It was Reagan who vetoed protectionist textile quota bills in 1985 and 1988. During Reagan’s eight years in office, Americans eagerly expanded their engagement in the global economy. In 1980, the year before Reagan became president, Americans spent a total of $334 billion on imported goods and services and payments on foreign investment in the United States. By 1988, his last year in office, American spending in the global economy had nearly doubled, to $663 billion. If Reagan was a “protectionist,” it had no discernable effect on the ability of Americans to spend freely in the global marketplace. Fittingly, one of the major federal buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue is named the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. “Voluntary” import quotas for steel and Japanese cars and imposing Section 201 tariffs on imported motorcycles to protect Harley-Davidson. were the exceptions and not the rule. They were tactical retreats designed to defuse rising protectionists pressures in Congress. The Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanans who claim to represent the conservative causes Reagan defined ignore the fact that he was very open to multilateral free trade agreements . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I know history very well . Before the market crash there was protectionism . The stock market crash was caused by the increasing likelihood that the Smoot- Hawley tariff would pass (Hoover did not sign it until 1930 .It was winding it's way through committee long before eventual passage in June 1930 .The markets reacted to the likelyhood of the bill being passed and the subsequent trade wars ). You are talking New Deal Propaganda. Roosevelt was a liberal not a conservative That was businessman President Hoover who signed off on the bill. Much of the causes of the Depression were 'progressive' policies that Hoover intiated after the crash . The crash was in 1929 and Roosevelt did not become President until 1933. What Roosevelt did in the 'New Deal ' was just a double down on the socialist /statist polices that Hoover iniated in reaction to the Depression. Yes of course the Fed monitary policy had a role in it too just like it had in the crash in 2009 ;and the recent downturn in the markets . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yes it is unacceptable but if that is so you should stop and think what it means for people outside the US; you go protectionist, and we get our industries back because if you do it so will we. No more yank tanks on our roads, no more stupid american produced TV ads and we can throw away the TPP and the US Australia Free Trade Agreement, wasn't any good to us anyway. We will buy our planes from Europe, no stupid F35, we may even reopen our oil refineries, our steel mills, our aluminium smelters
Nobody "forces " Congress to change laws . That is the lie you bought . The Constitution, through the Commerce Clause, gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities with foreign countries. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yep they never think that 'begger thy neighbor' has any impact on Americans. They claim I'm anti-American worker even though it is their policies that will have huge negative impacts on the typical American "middle class" consumer who will now have to pay more for the products they purchase . The same goes for Aussie consumers . Go ahead and raise the gasoline prices and other energy prices to the levels necessary to make your domestic industries competitive . Either that ;or like Trump you'll be calling for the Aussie tax payer to pay a fortune subsidizing your industries . Either way you pay. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's fine. It is more important for Americans, and Europeans, to have jobs than it is for American or European master traders to have more money while our fellow countrymen go without basics. "Free" trade with unfree nations such as China is PARTICULARLY galling, because the people in China are slaves to a system and CANNOT politically agitate to improve their environment or working conditions. Those profits are vested in the ChiCom leaders, who use part of it to build a Navy to kill us, and the people suffer worse than American workers, with no prospect whatever of changing their lot despite the money flowing into the country. Free trade with Communist China empowers the Communist leaders to maintain that system. Free trade with Europe ends up being an exchange of luxury goods, and that's not really a problem. Back when the British were the only industrial manufacturers (because they got there first), had the Americans, French and Germans not had the good sense to slap protectionist tariffs, the only major industrialized nation would still be Britain, and the whole world would be the British Empire.
It has that authority. And Congress is bought by the monied interest who exploit it to beggar the American workers.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform Mr. Trump's website really doesn't address tariffs at all. Although his site does suggest lowering corporate tax rates... "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
we can't pay more for gas than we do now, far more than you do, trade agreements haven't lowered the prices, so much LPG is exported the domestic price has risen. I'm sick of the cheap jack crap we get from China, washing machines that cause house fire, stuff that doesn't last, we are paying already. When I first bought a refrigerator it lasted 30 years, try buying one that will outlast the warranty, same with other appliances. The price of meat is now higher because so much is exported, we are already paying so we can export to you and others
then place the blame where it belongs ...with Congress ;and the American people who don't demand more . I don't see how voting for Trump ;a businessman who is very comfortable with the arrangement can change that .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
and you would have been better off Pax Britannica was far better than Pax Americana. When we had close associations with Britain before they tied themselves to Europe our industries flourished, we really did have manufacturing industries and a high standard of living, not the poverty ridden situation many find themselves in just scrapping through. The goods we bought were quality, not crap and there was real nation building. Just remember that Marx promised that they would sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself and it looks like you bought it
We don't have an immigration problem. What we have is a stupidity problem.
AMEN! to that
Build the the God damned wall. Indeed - the "stupidity problem" you mention, exists because the stupid think there will be a "wall" built. "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
A “corporate court” has ruled that the U.S. must face $1 billion in tariff punishment because a law U.S. consumers wanted for protection of health and safety has cost foreign companies some profits. The U.S. Congress is being told they must repeal the law or we face billions in punishment. U.S. courts don’t get a say. We the People don’t, either. That’s what “free trade” agreements have done for us lately. COOL The U.S. has country of origin labeling (COOL) rules for meat labels as part of rules that notify customers about the source of certain foods. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that informing consumers “discriminates” against Mexican and Canadian companies, thereby violating the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The court decided that American consumers might, for one reason or another, prefer to buy meat born, raised, slaughtered and packaged in the U.S. to meat from other countries that might or might not have lower health and safety standards. Since this preference would hurt the profits of Canadian and Mexican corporations, it violates the agreement. The U.S. labeling effort began when “mad-cow disease” was discovered in cattle in other countries. That was pretty big news at the time. The rules also come out of concerns that some countries have lower health and standards than the U.S. So Congress passed a law requiring that meat and other foods be labeled so consumers can make up their minds about what to purchase. But NAFTA allows Mexican and Canadian companies to sue the U.S. if the U.S. passes laws and/or impose regulations that might hurt their profits. The WTO has decided giving consumers the ability to know where their food comes from can hurt the profits of non-U.S. corporations and is therefore a violation of NAFTA. It’s Out Of Our Hands (And Sovereignty) Ninety-two percent of the U.S. public wants the meat labeling rules. But what the WTO rules is what has to be, because we are a party to NAFTA. Congress has passed and the president has signed NAFTA, so We the People can’t do anything about this – not through our courts or our legislative bodies. No U.S. court can review this ruling. We cannot vote to overcome it. It is out of our hands and beyond our country’s sovereign ability to do anything about it because we signed that away – so corporations can increase profits. Congress is not required to change the law, but Canada and Mexico can now begin to impose tariffs that will hit U.S. jobs and communities. We cannot impose counter-tariffs to balance this out, so Canadian and Mexican goods will have an advantage in U.S. markets. (See: Taxation without representation.) How did we end up here? We were promised that NAFTA would benefit our economy, bring jobs and higher wages to U.S. workers, etc. Of course, that is not what happened. Our trade deficit increased. Manufacturing jobs went south, so shareholders and executives could pocket the wage differential (while Mexicans family farms were wiped out, forcing northward migration). And, of course, now we can’t even tell people where their meat is coming from so consumers can decide if they want to purchase it. TPP This ruling is a particular concern now, because the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is coming before Congress for approval. TPP has similar “corporate court” provisions, and would open up our country to lawsuits from corporations in many more countries – including subsidiaries of U.S. corporations. Giant multinational corporations and Wall Street stand to benefit from TPP, because it will enable even more offshoring so shareholders and executives can pocket the wage difference. Their lobbyists (both in and out of government) will tell you that TPP can’t make us change our laws. For example, in May President Obama gave a speech at Nike headquarters to promote TPP. He said that warnings that TPP could “undermine American regulation – food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations” was “just not true.” He said: “They’re making this stuff up. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.” This is technically correct – but just barely. Congress doesn’t have to change the law. But the COOL case shows how we face tariff penalties that cost jobs and hit communities if Congress doesn’t. Perhaps billions of dollars of economic damage that we can’t do anything about won’t “force” Congress to change the COOL law. We should not sign way our sovereignty to corporate courts concerned only with corporate profit. This would be a good time to call your representative and senators and tell them you do not want them to vote to approve TPP. P.S.: Just last month the WTO ruled that our “dolphin-safe” tuna labels are a “technical barrier to trade.” So consumers won’t have information that lets them decide if they want to purchase tuna that is caught with or without killing dolphins. https://ourfuture.org/20151208/corporate-court-overrules-us-congress-public
Note: The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico against the United States regarding the labeling of meat. This follows a recent decision on labeling of tuna. The US will be forced to change their laws or face large payments for these trade violatins. https://www.popularresistance.org/wto-rules-us-faces-1-billion-annually-for- meat-labeling/
WTO now stands for World Trade Outrage rather than its original name, World Trade Organization. The WTO just ruled that the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda can freely violate American copyrights and trademarks in order to punish the United States for our laws prohibiting internet gambling. Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 after finding that "internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry." The social and financial costs of gambling would be greatly increased if we permit internet gambling. The WTO ordered this punishment because it says U.S. laws interfere with free trade in "recreational services." The foreign tribunal ranks free trade as more important than the intellectual property rights Americans have enjoyed since our Constitution was written. The WTO's 88-page decision issued in December contained the panel's remarkable admission that "we feel we are on shaky grounds." But that didn't stop the Geneva tribunal from issuing its ruling anyway. We have every right as a nation to protect our people against the corruption and loss of wealth that result from gambling on the internet. It is shocking for an unelected foreign tribunal to tell our 435-member House of Representatives, our 100-member Senate, and the President of the United States that they lack the power to protect our people. Even American supremacist judges would not have the nerve to authorize stealing copyrights and trademarks as a remedy for one side in an unrelated dispute. But the WTO granted what has been called a "piracy permit" that allows a small Caribbean nation to "pirate," or steal, U.S. property rights. The response in Washington was to announce an attempt to revise the conditions under which we joined the WTO in 1994. That's a non-starter because these changes in the WTO treaty would require the approval of all 151 members, most of whom don't like the U.S. anyway. The WTO has ruled against the United States in 40 out of 47 major cases, and against us in 30 out of 33 trade remedies cases. After the WTO ruled that the U.S. cannot divert tariff revenue to U.S. companies that are injured by foreign subsidies to their competitors, Vice President Dick Cheney provided the tie-breaking vote in the Senate on December 21, 2005 to kowtow to the WTO. For many years, opponents of the WTO have predicted that this foreign bureaucracy would massively interfere with our sovereignty. This new ruling is crazy, unjust and impertinent, but without a lot of public protest, it looks unlikely that our "free trade" President or Congress will do anything to protect us from the WTO. How is a foreign tribunal in Geneva able to put the United States in such a box? It's because the internationalist free-trade lobby cooked up a sleazy deal to force the WTO on us back in 1994 during the week after Thanksgiving when Americans were preoccupied with Christmas shopping and festivities. The deal to lock us into WTO consisted of three parts. First, the 14-page WTO agreement was surreptitiously added, without debate or publicity, to the 22,000-page revision of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) implementing legislation, and was voted on under "fast track" rules which allowed no amendments or changes, severely limited debate, and forbade any filibuster. Second, the Treaty Clause in the U.S. Constitution for ratification of treaties was ignored, and WTO was declared passed by Congress as a non- treaty. Third, the GATT/WTO agreement was passed in the December lame-duck session with the votes of dozens of Congressmen who were looking for lucrative jobs representing foreign interests because they had already been defeated in the Republican landslide of November 1994. The WTO is not "free trade" at all, but is a supra-national body in Geneva that sets, manages and enforces WTO-made rules to govern global trade. The WTO includes a one-country-one-vote legislature of 151 nations (we have the same one vote as Cuba), an unelected multinational bureaucracy, and a Dispute Settlement Board which deliberates and votes in secret and whose decisions cannot be appealed or vetoed. WTO is a direct attack on our sovereignty because it claims it can force us to change our laws to comply with WTO rulings. Article XVI, paragraph 4, states: "Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations." The WTO has the final say about whether U.S. laws meet WTO requirements. In this presidential season, the WTO should make easy target practice for any candidate to speak up and defend our sovereignty against the globalists who, under the mantra of "free trade," willingly allow the WTO to tell us what laws we may or may not adopt.
https://books.google.com/books? id=dGNXPlidE3UC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=wto+congress+change+law&source=bl&ots=beJA _ikec0&sig=NrBwJ9RohzGafPqwXx_9vw7AAps&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqpNCm_L7KAhWCCho KHazqBcs4ChDoAQg1MAU#v=onepage&q=wto%20congress%20change%20law&f=false
There were a lot of things. There was Coca Cola. So Coca Cola must have caused it. The Fed caused it on purpose. Had nothing to do with protectionism. Nothing at all. Not a smidgeon. Not even a tiny bit. Not a molecule. Not an atom. Not an electron. Nothing.
World Trade Organization/Date founded Image result for when was wto created January 1, 1995 https://www.google.com/search? q=when+was+wto+created&oq=when+was+wto+created&aqs=chrome..69i57.7054j0j7&so urceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 Because Reagan started some talks. Then Bush the cock sucker came to power and negotiated something else. Then Clinton the rapist came in and negotiated something else. That doesn't mean Reagan was going to do what they did. You're dishonest. Or a spinner at the least. Which is still dishonest.
We need a businessman. A capitalist. Not a commie or a socialist. You're really dense sometimes.
The World Trade Organization has just given Europe the right to hit the United States with $4 billion in tariff sanctions – to punish us for giving tax breaks to U.S. exporters like Boeing, Microsoft and GE. Under WTO rules, we are not permitted to retaliate. We must stand and take the EU sucker punch, however hard it wants to hit.
The World Trade Organization should have no jurisdiction over events in the United States.
The World Trade Organization should have no jurisdiction over events in the United States. People in the United States are not to be made subservient to a world government.
are you saying the United States should not be made to honour its agreements, that it should not comply with the rules. You see this is what makes you disengenous, what endears you to other nations, your over wheening superiority. You try to write agreements so we have to comply with US law, well stuff it, we don't need to comply! By saying this I am not saying I'm not in favour of country of origin labeling but you had the chance to have that argument in the negotiations and you passed that agreement into law.
Why does Boeing ,Microsoft and GE need tax breaks ? Talk about crony capitalism ! Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
So you were wrong. And you liked being wrong. You like the WTO telling Americans how to live. You're exactly what is wrong with this country. You definitely should not vote for Trump. Hillary is your candidate. Like you Obama and Hillary love treason and destroying America and replacing it with global government. If revolution ever comes you would be a target, like the establishment.
Just curious. Are you going to leave the country like Whoopi when Trump wins?
so you do like taxpayers subsidizing multi-national corporations . You like taxpayers subsidizing turning a food source into an expensive energy additive . Don't you worry . The GOPe is warming up to Trump ....as is the K Street crowd . They recognize one of their own. The K-Street establishment prefers Trump because with Trump everything is negotiable . “You can coach Donald,” Mr. Black said. “If he got nominated, he’d be scared to death. That’s the point he would call people in the party and say, ‘I just want to talk to you.’” “We can live with Trump,” said Richard F. Hohlt, a veteran lobbyist, reflecting his colleagues’ sentiment at a Republican National Committee meeting last week in Charleston, S.C. “Do they all love Trump? No. But there’s a feeling that he is not going to layer over the party or install his own person. Whereas Cruz will have his own people there.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-republican- establishment.html?_r=0 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No ,if Trump gets the nomination I'll hold my nose and vote for him just as I have done in the last 2 elections .He's still better than anyone the Dems are offering up...but that is a very low bar to hurdle . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
are you saying the United States should not be made to honour its agreements, that it should not comply with the rules. T hgell with the God damned agreements. I don't want a bunch of douch bag destructive politicians making masochistic suicidal agreements that affect me.
That isn't the question. The question is who gets to make that decision Americans or foreign bureaucrats. You are willing to let foreign bureaucrats make the decision because you agree with them. A little bit ago you were denying that the WTO is telling congress what to do. You now have no problem with that fact.
The food comes from corn. From a seed. There is plenty of land for food and ethanol. Bush also supports it. But you like Bush. Rubio supports it but you like Rubio. Christie supports it but you like CHristie, they all support it except curz but you still like them all, except Trump. So that isn't the reason you don't like Trump. That is you just regurgitating talking points.
They have no choice. They will be out in the cold. They see the writing on the wall. Finally. Fox should hire me. I told you all Trump was going all they way from the beginning. All these talking heads were wrong and they make millions. I was right and I'm doing it for free. You're welcome.
You didn't have to hold your nose for Bush?
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," That was Trump speaking about his cult following . I saw this happening in 2008 . It didn't end well then .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
They have no choice. They will be out in the cold. They see the writing on the wall. Finally. Fox should hire me. I told you all Trump was going all they way from the beginning. All these talking heads were wrong and they make millions. I was right and I'm doing it for free. You're welcome. The "establishment" is a group of deal makers . Trump will fit in very well with that crowd. You will be a fan of his until the public opinion polls shift to 50.1% to a position you oppose. Trump's history shows that he shifts with the popular tide as quickly . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You didn't have to hold your nose for Bush? The primaries are when one can express their choice best . General elections frequently comes down to the best of a bad choice. The answer to your question is yes in 2000 .My favorite candidate in 2000 was Alan Keyes. But he was not on the ballot . So clearly the choice between Bush and Gore was Bush. 2004 the biggest issue to me was who was going to be CIC in the war against jihadistan. Bush was heads and shoulders above JFKerry . My issues with his domestic polices were real . But Kerry's were worse . So 2004 was a no brainer . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And right on cue...
there are deal makers in all factions. Not just the establishment. It is good deal making that is needed.
Comments (67 - 70) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestReagan didn't negotiate NAFTA. He didn't sign it. He didn't support it.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#18)
(Edited)
You should learn history.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
It's unacceptable, and with Trump, people are standing up to say "We're not going to take it anymore", and to elect somebody who will change the rules to something that will allow the American middle class to come back
#29. To: A K A Stone (#21)
To force our congress to change our laws.
#30. To: paraclete (#28)
Yes it is unacceptable but if that is so you should stop and think what it means for people outside the US; you go protectionist, and we get our industries back because if you do it so will we. No more yank tanks on our roads, no more stupid american produced TV ads and we can throw away the TPP and the US Australia Free Trade Agreement, wasn't any good to us anyway. We will buy our planes from Europe, no stupid F35, we may even reopen our oil refineries, our steel mills, our aluminium smelters.
#31. To: paraclete (#28)
(Edited)
Yes it is unacceptable but if that is so you should stop and think what it means for people outside the US; you go protectionist, and we get our industries back because if you do it so will we. No more yank tanks on our roads, no more stupid american produced TV ads and we can throw away the TPP and the US Australia Free Trade Agreement, wasn't any good to us anyway. We will buy our planes from Europe, no stupid F35, we may even reopen our oil refineries, our steel mills, our aluminium smelters
#32. To: tomder55 (#29)
Nobody "forces " Congress to change laws . That is the lie you bought . The Constitution, through the Commerce Clause, gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities with foreign countries.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Tariffs. Tough enforcement of NAFTA, GATT etc.
#34. To: tomder55 (#30)
Either way you pay.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
the whole world would be the British Empire
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
(Edited)
We want a healthy Mexico to cut down on our immigration problems.
Build the the God damned wall.
#38. To: rlk (#37)
What we have is a stupidity problem.
#39. To: rlk (#37)
We don't have an immigration problem. What we have is a stupidity problem.
#40. To: tomder55 (#29)
Nobody "forces " Congress to change laws . That is the lie you bought .
#41. To: tomder55 (#29)
Nobody "forces " Congress to change laws .
#42. To: tomder55 (#29)
Nobody "forces " Congress to change laws .
#43. To: tomder55, redleghunter, nolu chan (#29)
#44. To: tomder55 (#27)
I know history very well . Before the market crash there was protectionism .
#45. To: tomder55 (#26)
#46. To: tomder55 (#35)
I don't see how voting for Trump ;a businessman
#47. To: tomder55 (#29)
Nobody "forces " Congress to change laws .
#48. To: A K A Stone (#41)
The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico against the United States regarding the labeling of meat.
#49. To: All (#48)
(Edited)
The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico against the United States regarding the labeling of meat.
#50. To: rlk (#49)
(Edited)
People in the United States are not to be made subservient to a world government.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#47)
The World Trade Organization has just given Europe the right to hit the United States with $4 billion in tariff sanctions – to punish us for giving tax breaks to U.S. exporters like Boeing, Microsoft and GE.
#52. To: tomder55 (#51)
Why does Boeing ,Microsoft and GE need tax breaks ? Talk about crony capitalism !
#53. To: tomder55 (#51)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#52)
(Edited)
#55. To: A K A Stone (#53)
Just curious. Are you going to leave the country like Whoopi when Trump wins?
#56. To: paraclete (#50)
People in the United States are not to be made subservient to a world government.
#57. To: tomder55 (#54)
so you do like taxpayers subsidizing multi-national corporations .
#58. To: tomder55 (#54)
You like taxpayers subsidizing turning a food source into an expensive energy additive .
#59. To: tomder55 (#54)
Don't you worry . The GOPe is warming up to Trump ...
#60. To: tomder55 (#55)
No ,if Trump gets the nomination I'll hold my nose and vote for him just as I have done in the last 2 elections .
#61. To: tomder55, tooconservative, (#55)
(Edited)
#62. To: A K A Stone, TooConservative (#61)
#63. To: A K A Stone, TooConservative (#59)
Don't you worry . The GOPe is warming up to Trump ...
#64. To: A K A Stone (#60)
No ,if Trump gets the nomination I'll hold my nose and vote for him just as I have done in the last 2 elections .
#65. To: tomder55, calcon, A K A Stone, sneakypete, cranky (#64)
#66. To: tomder55 (#63)
The "establishment" is a group of deal makers
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]